R. v. Wills, (1992) 52 O.A.C. 321 (CA)

• Judge: Houlden, Griffiths and Doherty, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: February 20, 1992
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (1992), 52 O.A.C. 321 (CA);1992 CanLII 2780 (NS CA);1992 CanLII 2780 (ON CA);7 OR (3d) 337;12 CR (4th) 58;70 CCC (3d) 529;[1992] CarswellOnt 77;[1992] OJ No 294 (QL);15 WCB (2d) 415;34 MVR (2d) 296;52 OAC 321;9 CRR (2d) 360

R. v. Wills (1992), 52 O.A.C. 321 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Her Majesty The Queen (respondent) v. Timothy E. Wills (appellant)

(177/90)

Indexed As: R. v. Wills

Ontario Court of Appeal

Houlden, Griffiths and Doherty, JJ.A.

February 20, 1992.

Summary:

The accused was found guilty by a jury of impaired driving causing death and driving a motor vehicle while having an excessive blood-alcohol content. The trial judge con­victed the accused of impaired driving caus­ing death and stayed the conviction for driving a motor vehicle while having an excessive blood-alcohol content. The accused appealed the conviction.

The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The court held that the taking of a breathalyzer sample without reasonable and probable grounds and without a valid con­sent by the accused violated the accused's right under s. 8 of the Charter to be secure against an unreasonable seizure. However, the court stated that the evidence obtained was not to be excluded under s. 24(2), because its admission would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

Civil Rights - Topic 1220

Security of the person - Lawful or reason­able search - Seizure defined - Passengers died in a motor vehicle accident - The accused driver registered a "warn" on an A.L.E.R.T. machine - Police lacked reason to believe the accused was impaired and lacked grounds for a breathalyzer demand - No criminal charges respecting impaired driving were contemplated - Police sug­gested to the accused, and later his father, that a breathalyzer test be taken solely in the event that civil litigation ensued - The accused consented - The A.L.E.R.T. had malfunctioned and the accused's readings were .128 - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that taking the breath sample consti­tuted an unreasonable seizure (Charter, s. 8), where there were no grounds for a demand and the accused's consent was invalid due to an unawareness of the po­tential consequences of his consent - See paragraphs 36 to 92.

Civil Rights - Topic 1222

Security of the person - Lawful or reason­able search and seizure - Consent to search or seizure - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1220 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 1222

Security of the person - Lawful or reason­able search and seizure - Consent to search or seizure - The Ontario Court of Appeal stated that the taking of a breathalyzer sample with consent was not a "seizure" - The Crown had to prove on a balance of probabilities that there was an express or implied consent by a person authorized to consent; that the consent was voluntary and not the result of police oppression, coercion or other external conduct negating a free choice; that there was knowledge of what was being con­sented to and knowledge of the right to refuse to do the act for which consent was sought; and that the person giving the consent knew the potential consequences of giving consent - See paragraph 70.

Civil Rights - Topic 8368

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Exclusion of evidence - An accused registered "warn" on an improperly functioning A.L.E.R.T. device - Accordingly, police lacked grounds for a breathalyzer demand and had no reason to believe the accused was impaired - The accused consented to a police request to provide a breath sample in contemplation of civil litigation - The taking of the sample, without valid con­sent, constituted an unreasonable seizure (Charter, s. 8) - The accused's blood-alcohol level was .128 - The Ontario Court of Appeal refused to exclude the evidence under s. 24(2) - The Charter violation was more apparent than real - A properly functioning A.L.E.R.T. machine would have provided grounds for a demand - The police acted in good faith - Admission of the evidence would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute - See paragraphs 93 to 113.

Civil Rights - Topic 8550

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Interpretation - Bring the administration of justice into disrepute - [See Civil Rights - Topic 8368 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 1372

Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Breathalyzer demand - Reasonable grounds - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1220 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Beare; R. v. Higgins, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 387; 88 N.R. 205; 71 Sask.R. 1; 45 C.C.C.(3d) 57, refd to. [para. 10].

Southam Inc. v. Hunter, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145; 55 N.R. 241; 55 A.R. 291; 9 C.R.R. 355; 14 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 41 C.R.(3d) 97; [1984] 6 W.W.R. 577; 33 Alta. L.R.(2d) 193; 27 B.L.R. 297; 84 D.T.C. 6467; 2 C.P.R.(3d) 1; 11 D.L.R.(4th) 641, refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. Sanelli, Duarte and Fasciano, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 30; 103 N.R. 86; 37 O.A.C. 322; 53 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. Wong et al., [1990] 3 S.C.R. 36; 120 N.R. 34; 45 O.A.C. 250; 60 C.C.C.(3d) 460, refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. Dyment, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 417; 89 N.R. 249; 73 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 13; 229 A.P.R. 13; 45 C.C.C.(3d) 244, refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. Pohoretsky, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 945; 75 N.R. 1; 47 Man.R.(2d) 295; 33 C.C.C.(3d) 398, refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Katsigiorgis (1987), 23 O.A.C. 27; 62 O.R.(2d) 441; 39 C.C.C.(3d) 256 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Tomaso (1989), 33 O.A.C. 106; 70 C.R.(3d) 152 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Pavel (1989), 36 O.A.C. 328; 53 C.C.C.(3d) 50 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 38].

Jackson v. Joyceville Penitentiary Disci­plinary Tribunal (1990), 32 F.T.R. 96; 55 C.C.C.(3d) 50; 75 C.R.(3d) 174 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Holman (1982), 28 C.R.(3d) 378; 16 M.V.R. 225 (B.C. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. Hutton (1988), 92 A.R. 308; 67 C.R.(3d) 356 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 39].

Skinner v. Railway Labour Executives' Association (1989), 489 U.S. 602; 109 S. Ct. 1402 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 39].

Thomson Newspapers Ltd. v. Director of Investigation and Research, Combines Investigation Act et al., [1990] 1 S.C.R. 425; 106 N.R. 161; 39 O.A.C. 161; 54 C.C.C.(3d) 417, refd to. [para. 42].

Illinois v. Rodrigues (1990), 110 S. Ct. 2793, refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. Dedman, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 2; 60 N.R. 34; 11 O.A.C. 241; 46 C.R.(3d) 193; 20 C.C.C.(3d) 97, refd to. [para. 46].

R. v. Turpin, Siddiqui and Clauzel, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1296; 96 N.R. 115; 34 O.A.C. 115; 48 C.C.C.(3d) 8, refd to. [para. 48].

Schneckloth v. Bustamonte (1973), 412 U.S. 218; 93 S. Ct. 2041 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 48].

R. v. Clarkson, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 383; 66 N.R. 114; 69 N.B.R.(2d) 40; 177 A.P.R. 40; 50 C.R.(3d) 289; 25 C.C.C.(3d) 207, refd to. [para. 50].

R. v. Manninen, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1233; 76 N.R. 198; 21 O.A.C. 192; 34 C.C.C.(3d) 385, refd to. [para. 50].

R. v. Askov, Hussey, Melo and Gugliotta, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1199; 113 N.R. 241; 42 O.A.C. 81; 59 C.C.C.(3d) 449; 79 C.R.(3d) 273, refd to. [para. 50].

R. v. Hebert, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 151; 110 N.R. 1; [1990] 5 W.W.R. 1; 57 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 77 C.R.(3d) 145, refd to. [para. 50].

R. v. Smith (N.M.), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 714; 122 N.R. 203; 104 N.S.R.(2d) 233; 283 A.P.R. 233; 63 C.C.C.(3d) 313, refd to. [para. 50].

R. v. Nielson, [1988] 6 W.W.R. 1; 66 Sask.R. 293; 43 C.C.C.(3d) 548 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 53].

R. v. Meyers (1987), 78 A.R. 255; 58 C.R.(3d) 176 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 53].

R. v. Goldman, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 976; 30 N.R. 453; 51 C.C.C.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 56].

R. v. Rosen, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 961; 30 N.R. 483; 51 C.C.C.(2d) 65, refd to. [para. 56].

R. v. Debot, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1140; 102 N.R. 161; 37 O.A.C. 1; 52 C.C.C.(3d) 193; 73 C.R.(3d) 129, refd to. [para. 58].

R. v. Thompson et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1111; 114 N.R. 1; 59 C.C.C.(3d) 225, refd to. [para. 84].

R. v. Garofoli, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1421; 116 N.R. 241; 43 O.A.C. 1; 60 C.C.C.(3d) 161; 80 C.R.(3d) 317, refd to. [para. 84].

R. v. Benz and Haley (1986), 14 O.A.C. 297; 27 C.C.C.(3d) 454; 51 C.R.(3d) 363, refd to. [para. 84].

R. v. Heisler (1984), 57 A.R. 230; 11 C.C.C.(3d) 475; 8 D.L.R.(4th) 764 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 84].

R. v. Collins, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265; 74 N.R. 276; 56 C.R.(3d) 193; [1987] 3 W.W.R. 699; 38 D.L.R.(4th) 508; 33 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 90].

R. v. Musurichan (1990), 107 A.R. 102; 56 C.C.C.(3d) 570 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 90].

R. v. Marshall (1989), 36 O.A.C. 14; 52 C.C.C.(3d) 130 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 105].

R. v. Evans, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 869; 124 N.R. 278; 63 C.C.C.(3d) 289, refd to. [para. 108].

R. v. Brown (G.J.) (1991), 107 N.S.R.(2d) 349; 290 A.P.R. 349 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 109].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 7, sect. 8, sect. 24(2).

Authors and Works Noticed:

Canada, Law Reform Commission, Police Powers: Search and Seizure in Criminal Law Enforcement (1983), Working Paper No. 30, pp. 53 [para. 68]; 158-163 [para. 47].

La Fave, Search and Seizure (2nd Ed. 1987), vol. III, pp. 152-156 [para. 63]; 157-160 [para. 86].

Libman, The Admissibility of Breath Cer­tificates (1989), 67 C.R.(3d) 372, p. 374 [para. 39].

Morrissette, The Exclusion of Evidence Under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms: What to do and What not to do (1984), 29 McGill L.J. 521, p. 538 [para. 99].

Young, Not Waving but Drowning: A Look at Waiver and Collective Constitu­tional Rights in the Criminal Process (1989), 53 Sask. L.R. 47, pp. 51-52 [para. 48].

Counsel:

Christopher A.W. Bentley, for the appel­lant;

Rosella M. Cornaviera, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on June 13, 1991, before Houlden, Griffiths and Doherty, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal.

The judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered by Doherty, J.A., and released on February 20, 1992.